³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I find Michael Marra’s amendments 45 and 48 to be very problematic.

One of the key principles of the bill is that of self-declaration: that trans people should be able to get a gender recognition certificate by a process of self-identification. More than two thirds of us agreed to that in the stage 1 debate a couple of weeks ago. However, amendment 48 would require a person from a listed recognised profession who has known the applicant for at least two years to countersign the trans person’s application. That is fundamentally at odds with the idea that the bill is based on—the principle of self-declaration. In addition, it would create additional barriers to legal recognition for some trans people.

I say for the avoidance of doubt that statutory declarations are not something that you can make to a friend or a neighbour on a whim. They are sworn statements made under oath and witnessed by a justice of the peace, local councillor or notary public, and making a false statutory declaration carries a sentence of up to two years in prison. That is already a significant and serious step. In my opinion, the opinion of many who work with and support trans people, and that of trans people themselves, there is no value in requiring an additional step through countersignatories.

Michael Marra compares the matter with the passport application process, but passport applications do not require a statutory declaration; they simply require a witness. It is not appropriate for an outsider to have to confirm a person’s gender identity.

It could also be difficult for more socially isolated trans people to find someone in a recognised profession that is listed in amendment 48 who has known them for two years. I do not think that that should prevent them from obtaining legal recognition of who they are.

I strongly urge colleagues to vote against amendments 45 and 48.

I will speak generally about the amendments in the group.

First, it is clear that the age of legal capacity in Scots law is 16. At that age, young people can get married, join the army, work and vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections. It is almost as if we trust them to make big life decisions on their own. I do not see why this situation is different.

Let us also remember that many young people have already transitioned socially—which might include coming out to friends and family—without applying for a GRC. Not having a birth certificate that matches their identity could cause issues when applying for jobs and for further or higher education and, more importantly, could leave them open to a lack of privacy regarding their trans status.

I am vehemently opposed to the time periods currently in the bill, both the time to be spent living in the acquired gender and the reflection period. Those are not based on specific evidence and fall short of international best practice for gender recognition, which has no waiting periods at all. To make the required time period for living in the acquired gender even longer for 16 and 17-year-olds simply increases the length of time for which they would have documents that disclose their gender history, without providing any clear benefit. It also risks creating more opportunities for those who do not agree with a young person’s decision to apply for a GRC to go digging through that young person’s online presence looking for misgendering, the use of a different name and so on. Young people tend to express themselves with far more gender fluidity than others and the longer time period puts them at greater risk of bad-faith actors.

How many young trans people have the members who lodged these amendments actually spoken to during drafting? If they had done so, I am not sure that we would be here debating them. I will vote against all the amendments in the group.

Rachael Hamilton talked about medical procedures and therapies. To be clear, that has nothing to do with an application for a gender recognition certificate. No medical process is required or expected as part of the gender recognition application process, and no GRC is required to undergo any medical transition. On Christine Grahame’s comments, I believe that she is sincere in her endeavours and her position on the issue. However, we fundamentally disagree on how to come at the issue.

Finally, I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments and for the many interesting and helpful conversations that we have had on that and other issues in the bill over the past many months. I acknowledge her comments about the amendment regarding provisions for end of life, which we will come to later, and I thank her for those. I also thank her for her comments about amendment 141. However, I will press the amendments in my name that seek to remove the requirement to live in the acquired gender for three months and the three-month reflection.

We are all losing the plot! [Laughter.]

I have nothing further to add, and I will withdraw amendment 95.

Amendment 95, by agreement, withdrawn.

It might surprise colleagues that I want to speak to this group of amendments, but I will be supporting amendment 14.

Taken on its own, amendment 14 removes the specific criminal offence that the bill introduces of making a false declaration in relation to one’s trans status. We heard from several people and organisations in evidence sessions, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Amnesty International, JustRight Scotland and Engender, that that offence is unnecessary. It is already a criminal offence under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 to make a false statutory declaration. The introduction of a new offence risks unnecessarily criminalising children.

However, there is another reason not to have the offence: having an offence that names trans people specifically potentially makes an already marginalised and vulnerable group more of a target for litigation.

Therefore, for reasons that are very different from those of Sue Webber, and that come from a very different place of principle and value, I will vote in favour of the removal of section 14 from the bill.

Thanks; that is helpful, and it ties in to my second question. You spoke about the important role of REPs and of using the local knowledge that they provide to identify sectors and clusters that could benefit. However, there is potential for tension between the local, regional and national levels on both investment and identification of sectors, in particular when we try to match that work up with some of the skills gap-identification work that you spoke about.

You said that the skills inquiry will report next spring, but can you give us any indication of whose priorities will win out? The types of investment and approaches to skills and supply chain issues for an energy economy are very different to the investment and skills focus that we would need for a hospitality economy, for instance, and there are going to be distinct geographical tensions in that. How do you see those conflicts and tensions being resolved?

I have a couple of other questions, but perhaps I can ask those offline.

Good morning, minister. Thank you for being here, and thank you for what you have said so far.

You have partly answered my first question, which is about investment zones. In the past 12 hours or so, it has been announced that they are likely to be scrapped.

Various discussions are taking place about what might replace them, such as urban regeneration plans and so on. I appreciate that it is a very moveable feast. What will your priorities be in your discussions with the UK Government around the consequences for Scotland? If we are not going to have investment zones in the low-tax, low-regulation space, what will your priorities be with regard to equivalent support in Scotland?